tv [untitled] August 7, 2012 1:00pm-1:30pm PDT
this proceeding. i do not know the other parties negotiating with this party, but i would certainly be interested to see the same person working with me is now representing the people that eventually got the deal. i do not really see that happen very often. there are very clear guidelines in terms of how you can interact with different parties. i imagine the parties are looking into the legal questions raised by that. in any event, i think there is basis for denial, but i also think there is a benefit to that, and if we do go down the road of continuing, that there is truly an effort and willingness to negotiate and to deal with the community in good faith. i think that is all the
community is asking for. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. i of a few comments. i think one of the issues i have worked on very extensively is preserving and improving san francisco; righ's night life. i worked very hard on this. i was part of the study that showed what it contributes to the economy. i have been very vocal and raising questions about the western some of plan, because i think it will undermine night life around 11th street, so i am absolutely passant about having great night life. as a gay guy who has been going to get barsay bars, before i wa,
i am completely passionate. i also -- all of these different bidders and suitors who wanted to take this over and keep it as the eagle, i stepped up and tried to help each and every one of them. i spoke with them on the phone and try to help them. i do not know why it did not work. i tried to help mike lee on, as did supervisor kim. it did not work. i did it. i have worked very hard to keep it open, and to give it to stay as the eagle, and sometimes we want to view ourselves so powerful that we can make things happen, and this is one of the frustrating experiences where you try and think you have influence, but you end up having a lot less influence that you
actually have. with that said, we are in the situation we're in, and i will support the motion to continue the motion to september 10. we will give the new owners time to do our reach for the information that has to be gathered and come back to the committee so the committee and board can make an intelligent decision about the liquor license transfer. i want to know that as the new owners, and i said this last week, i stepped and a little bit of a cow pie here, because there is a history, and people have been very angry at property owners. they actually took their liquor license out of the premises with them. i think they have not done anything wrong. there were timing issues, and there have been comments today
that i think have been unfair. community are reached is extremely important. i am confident and request that that start happening immediately. we will work closely with them on this. i also want to note that even though there have been a number of comments today about gay vs straight ownership, and believe me, i am a huge bolivaeliever i owners of bars and nightclubs, but that is not before the board, and nor would it be legal before it to be before the board. we can cannot -- we cannot condition a liquor license based on whether their oy're gay or straight. there are very defined standards around transferring a liquor
license. i think there has been some unrealistic expectations in the community about what is within the parameters of the board's determination about that. i just want to make sure this license is held to the same standard, and that includes community outreach. i think it makes sense to have more time to do that. it should be the same standards. with that, i will support supervisor kim's motion. supervisor olague: i will support supervisor kim's motion also. september 10 is right after the august break. i am not convinced there will be a lot of time for the things that need to happen. supervisor kim: i am happy to amend the motion to september 24.
supervisor wiener: without objection, the man is amended. supervisor kim: i think the process is incredibly important, especially in a neighborhood that is already saturated with a group license, and there are a number of things i will consider as we move forward as the type of businesses that are intended to be as part of the neighborhood. just for a little bit of context, and any census tract it is suggested there are only seven alcohol-serving but years, but there are 33 here. i think there are a number of questions that i will have certainly in terms of what the clientele and security plan and the type of business you plan to move forward, just so you also know in terms of the area, this part of the city has more than doubled the crime that is considered a high crime area.
it is considered high crime with 215 crimes. this area has 559 reported crimes. i think i will really need to see a strong security plan, and also, an important part of safety is absolutely community outreach. you want to know the neighbors that you will be residing with. want to have good relationships with them. that is part of preventing crimes as well, knowing the community will be a part of, so i think that is absolutely essential. i want to confer with supervisor wiener. i have a number of concerns regarding the transfer it solves. we're more than happy to provide a list of folks that you can do support to to get feedback from, and i am looking forward to what may become before us in september. super wiener: thank you.
one quick follow-up on the saturation issue, which is always an important concern. it is my understanding the people always had a 48 liquor license for decades and decades, and as we have continued dialogue, i just want to picture people understand that the saturation argument. it is challenging to say that it is saturated show we should not have a 48 for these owners, but we should bring the ankle facea. i want to make sure we have that in mind. supervisor kim: i am not saying i would not approve because of saturation. i represent a district that is saturated. i do not think that is a saturation itself, but when there is liquor-serving businesses in the neighborhood, there is a higher level of
standard, and you want to ensure that there has been a lot of outreach and security plan. supervisor campos: i totally agree with you, and i completely agree with what supervisor kim as saying. i think saturation is a consideration, in the context of looking at how the proposed operators are interacting and connected with the community is a key consideration in terms of looking at the overall public welfare. unless they are committed to actually working with the neighborhood and community, i think that we could very well decide it is not in the public welfare to provide a licence in one instance. i do think, connected the players are to the committee is an important consideration, and i am sure the something that all of us will look into. supervisor elsbernd: seeing the
commissioner wiener: welcome, everyone, to the san francisco county transportation authority finance meeting. are there any announcements? >> no announcements. commissioner wiener: ok, what will go to item two? >> item two, up from the minutes of the june 12, 2012 meeting. this is an action item. commissioner wiener: colleagues, any comments? any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes? can we take that without objection? that will be the order. item three. >> state and federal legislative
update. this is an information/action item. >> mr. chairman, members, i am here today to give you an update on legislation of interest and what is going on in sacramento. i want to cover a couple of bills first, but i do want to know that last friday was the date that the legislature recessed until august 6. they completed their work for the year. when they come back in august, they will be dealing with appropriations for two weeks, the appropriation bills and the suspense calendar, and then they will go straight to the floor. a lot of bills moving in that direction, including some of the ones i will update you on. first, a slate of bills that have particular interest to the bay area, the community, and particularly san francisco. a.b. 57 includes the requirement that we saw that san francisco had a third representative. it is on the governor's desk,
and as a result, i am organizing a check-in with the governor's office staff to make sure whether they are standing on that, and i will have that completed by the end of the week. there are two bills by the senate transportation chairman that have been of high interest. the bill was basically killed in the assembly transportation early last week and is no longer valid for the year. s.b. 878 b which at one point started off as a bay area governance issue, restructured the relationships in the bay area, and then ran into trouble and became more of a bill to deal with economic strategies in the bay area. later, that became a bill no longer dealing with bay area governments but dealing with the
state transportation commission. that bill has been sent to appropriation, and we will not see any more attempts to deal with governance this year. probably next year. finally, s.b. 1339, a re-bill of senator yee, the bill had been sponsored last year, but it was statewide, and the governor chose to veto it. this year, the senator narrowed it down to be a mtc region bill only. the governor has asked them to keep it in moments, it is technically not on his desk until he can get around to taking a look at it, given the slate of work the governor had the last couple of weeks. assembly members scanner -- assembly member skinner has tried to enact legislation that
would reduce parking requirements in cities. to help benefit in-fill development. her bill last year died due to opposition from the league of cities. this year, she established a new bill in the last month, a.b. 904, and she ran into trouble with it, so she held on to it, so she will be back next year rather than surprising people in the last month of committees. there are a couple of bills that deal with ifd's. the speaker has a measure which would reduce the vote requirement to something like 55%, but it also would allow -- there are certain pass-throughs that come back to the city at certain points in time that would allow this to be integrated with the ifp process.
i am not a technician, so if you need to know more about this, i will dig into it. i have a decent handle of what is going on, but the interaction between the two in the bill is confusing to me. in addition, the senate local government share has introduced a local government bill late in the session to deal with it. her main attack is on the vote requirements for establishing an infrastructure finance district. that bill has not been heard yet. it is pending in local government. it seems to be outside the deadline, so it may be in trouble. she may be seeking a rule waiver. those are the high interest bills we are following this year and where they stand at this point in time. as you know and read about and a lot of us were working on for the last couple of months -- or the last six months in some cases here in the bay area -- on
a high-speed rail funding package, the total package, which includes financing for the initial construction segment in the central valley, includes the balkans, which this region really promulgated the whole notion of an additional investment -- includes the bookends. it lives the high speed rail authority into a modern era. finally, the one i have been working most directly on was for the connectivity funding, which is the path that provides the funding for in this case central subway project. earlier in the year i did not see a pathway to getting that done as a stand-alone basis, but i think the operators and related entities in the state were looking at connectivity
with the department of finance. this is the time to make those investments. consequently, we had a series of meetings with finance and the cpc to get them to a place where they accepted the updated program and put the money in the budget. with that, i will draw to a close. commissioner wiener: colleagues, are there any questions? commissioner elsbernd: what does that pot of money due for caltrain and electrification? how far down the path does that get us? >> i have heard conflicting reports that there was 700 million, but i have heard $600 million. the characterization i heard fully funding the electrification of the 700 level, so i do not understand the differential. it may be local funding included in the pot.
>> good morning -- did i hear your question -- the high-speed rail money that caltrain received -- is that all they needed to fully electrified? is it 70% of what they needed? >> this is $600 million that essentially completes the funding picture, but what we have pending -- there is a major commitment to making the extension top priority in the next generation of projects, but then we have to come up with more money and so on. commissioner wiener: any other questions? is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> mr. chairman, i do have -- i think given the circumstances, i should at least give you a very
quick briefing on the fact that congress has approved the federal surface transportation act after nine extensions of the previous and several years of waiting, so kudos go to senator boxer, especially in the senate, for pushing this thing through. it is only a two-year extension, and there are some significant changes that happened as a result. i promise you a written and more detailed, more organized presentation for the board meeting this month, but i wanted to highlight at least that there are some fairly significant areas of change. the bill has been funded at levels very similar -- overall levels verisimilar to 2012, and it only covers 2013 and 2014
federal fiscal years. so we are talking about a highway funding level close to the $40 billion range, and a transit funding level in the $8 billion or $9 billion a year range. what is different is that some programs have been consolidated. notably, there is a new alternatives program, which brings together what used to be transportation enhancements as well as safe routes to schools, regulation of trails, but facilities, and other things like turning lanes, boulevards, retrofits, and so on. these changes have not sat well with the advocacy community,
because they do represent, by lumping them all together, a fairly significant decrease in the total funding available for these programs. the funding is we would estimate about 30% lower. that is not good news for san francisco, which has always competed very well, particularly in terms of discretionary programs. furthermore, the funds for this new category are now divided 50/50 between a path that goes to mr. perot -- metropolitan planning organization, and the other half goes to the state dot, so the state can opt out of using that money for this purpose and pour it into road construction or maintenance or anything like that, so we will have an advocacy challenge their at the state level present -- preventing the state from opting out because it would be a
further hit to the amount of money that is available. at the regional level, i am trust and we will compete very well as usual. there's also a fair bit of reform intended to streamline and reduce the amount of time it takes for projects to clear federal environmental regulations. among those things, the bill has expanded fairly significantly the amount of delegation that the federal government can do to states. there really is kind of a pilot program with the federal government delegates on the state to be the executives, and we're talking now about including a rail, transit, and multiple projects among the projects for which the state can accept delegation. that should be interesting in terms of streamlining things. and then there is another thing that is fairly significant, which is there is a categorical
exclusion now for projects that are happening within an existing operating right of way. and then projects that receive less than $5 million in federal funds and where federal funds are less than 15% of total cost are also categorical exclusion. i am not terribly concerned about any weakening of the federal environmental protection statutes because we have such a strong environmental protection law in california, but there's something to be said for what happens for states that do not have the general protection. the other area where there are very major changes this year -- this is the infrastructure fund that is facilitating the financing of projects like transbay -- the program has grown enormously at something like 400%. from the $120 million we had in
2012, we are jumping to $750 million, and there is a pretty clear recognition in that context of the importance of bringing in the private sector. several provisions that make it easier to deal with public/private partnerships, and also a significant expansion of the ability of the state to add will see any federal aid facility. those are significant highlights. one negative -- the facilities program is being funded at less than half the size it has now. that will be an issue for us. and the new starts program is also being streamlined, and now it includes provisions that emphasize core capacity projects that at least a 10% decrease in capacity.
it will be interesting to see how the program is managed. there are several areas where program management is being proposed revisited. for example, they're no longer will be the program we have today, the guidelines and so on. there will essentially be a rolling application process, and as long as there's money in the bank, projects will have to be considered for funding. there is a relaxation of the financial criteria where they would be subordinate to private debt, which is complete opposite of what we have now. we will have to see whether the program moves forward and whether it becomes a way to streamline the program or whether time goes up in more discretionary positions at the federal level. that is a very quick summary. i would be happy to answer questions, but more likely, i am offering new -- promising you a
written summary of this for a board meeting. commissioner wiener: thank you. colleagues, any questions? any public comment for the addendum? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will move on to item three. excuse me, four. >> item four, recommend authorizing the executive director to execute a memorandum of agreement with the treasure island development authority in an amount not to exceed $150,000 for the fiscal year 2012/2013 operating budget and work plan to implement the treasure island transportation program and authorizing the executive director to negotiate the agreement terms and conditions. >> we are seeking the authority to execute an agreement with the treasure island development authority to implement the treasure island transportation plan. the 2008 california state assembly bill 981 authorized the board of supervisors to
designate an agency to act as the transportation management agency for treasure in and -- treasure island and to be responsible for implementing the very innovative transportation plan for the island, which centers on using fees generated on the island to deliver the multi modal transportation system to and from the island. in 2008 of last year, the tida board and authority board recommended that the board of supervisors designate the transportation authority as the treasure island mobility transportation agency. in december last year, the board executed an agreement to carry out pre-implementation activities, leading up to the designation of an agency as the tima as well as fund raising and other pre-implementation activities. this agreement would extend or renew our agreement for fiscal
year 2012-2013, including the scope of work that would initiate the conceptual design and preliminary engineering, and includes a budget which is funded by contributions from tida, which provides a local match to priority development grant, which provides the bulk of the funding for the work, and we were the top-ranked program. i am happy to answer any questions. commissioner wiener: thank you. are there any questions, colleagues? comments? seeing none, is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to for this? colleagues, can we do that without objection? that will be the order. next item. >> 5, introduction